|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 15:49:09 GMT
Well, I think the advertisers may be given a choice if that is what YouTube wants. It is their job to get us advertisers. I don't want to mingle with THEIR task. Question is how is the money distributed. I say it should be distributed over the minutes watched, no matter if that watchtime led to clicks on an ad. Means, even if no ads are shown on a video because of YouTube's preference for some content, if that video attracted many views and plenty of watchtime, the creator should get his peace of the cake. But if you concede to that, then it creates more problems than it solves, because that means youtube will have to cater to advertisers every little whim regarding the ad placement. Basically, youtube will be forced to sit down and watch all videos on beforehand and then determine if a particular ad can be placed in it or not, because some ad companies have certain demands while others have different demands. Youtube has already resorted to bots and automated services (which hurt the content creators) because they simply can't adress every single issue with a human due to the massive amount of data that Youtube has to process daily. So while you might not want to mingle with their task, it's probably in the best interest of everyone to get youtube to take a more hardline stance about their exclusive right to handle the ad placement on their platform instead of allowing every single advertiser to make their own special demands about "vetting" which videos their ads can be shown in and which they can't be shown in. After all, they are purchasing a service from youtube. They are not purchasing a service from individual content creators. Therefore, youtube should be the one deciding ad placement (and naturally they should do it with content creators benefit in mind, because the content creators are what keeps youtube in business to begin with). If advertisers think it's more important to micromanage what their ads are "associated" with on youtube, instead of getting maximum exposure, then they are perfectly free to contact individual youtubers (whose content they agree with) and discuss sponsorship deals with the promise that the content is kept "advertiser friendly" according to the standards of that particular advertiser. But if you turn to youtube directly, then the deal should be: exposure according to the amount that you pay for, but you relinquish control over which type of videos your ads show up in. I know a common belief is that "the customer is always right". And youtube's customers are the advertisers so many believe they should cater to their every whim. But as Henry Ford also put it: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Also, I agree that you should be paid even if no ads are shown in your videos if you still got many views. Because many views mean that you attracted a lot of people to youtubes platform, which means that they get exposed to ads in other videos since almost no person watch a single video and then turn their web browser off immediately. So it is better that views dictate how much money you earn. |
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 5, 2018 16:01:48 GMT
Well, as I said I see the job of the creators simply in producing videos that are in line with well defined and properly explained rules YouTube sets and that attract many views.
YouTube's job is to bring in ads and pay the creators a share of the money.
I don't care HOW they solve the issues they have with their customers. All I care for is that creators are paid fairly for their hard work.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 16:27:16 GMT
Well, as I said I see the job of the creators simply in producing videos that are in line with well defined and properly explained rules YouTube sets and that attract many views. YouTube's job is to bring in ads and pay the creators a share of the money. I don't care HOW they solve the issues they have with their customers. All I care for is that creators are paid fairly for their hard work. I understand. I just believe it will be easier to get them to meet the Union demands if there are good suggestions about how they can meet them. I think it's plain to see that there's a bigger danger if youtube starts losing content creators who are being abused by their fuzzy and arbitrary decisions and rules, than youtube losing an advertiser or two. Right now, it seems that there's an adversarial situation between the content creators and the advertisers. Content creators want freedom to create the content they wish to do. And some of the advertisers are demanding increasing regulation and restrictions on the content on the platform. Youtube is in the middle. And they are conceding too much to the demands of advertisers rather than their content creators, but I think that in the long run it's bad for their business. |
|
|
|
Post by greenbeetle on Mar 5, 2018 16:30:52 GMT
Well, I think the advertisers may be given a choice if that is what YouTube wants. It is their job to get us advertisers. I don't want to mingle with THEIR task. Question is how is the money distributed. I say it should be distributed over the minutes watched, no matter if that watchtime led to clicks on an ad. Means, even if no ads are shown on a video because of YouTube's preference for some content, if that video attracted many views and plenty of watchtime, the creator should get his peace of the cake. I can appreciate this line of thinking. But my successfully monetized channel already took a big hit last year on ad revenue. If I play by the rules and attract advertisers to the platform it is difficult for me to accept I will be splitting my already meager ad revenue for ads shown on my channel with channels that generate no ad revenue and attract no money to the platform. If those channels have value outside of their ability to attract ad revenue they will be able to attract a sponsorship or a patreon following. If they can't do ANY of those 3 things I'm not sure how its justifiable they should expect to get paid for their content. I worry you are flirting with the idea that "just because I put a video up on youtube, i should get paid for it." But what if it's garbage? What if it has no monetary value to anyone who consumes it? Many people write books that never get published, should we search them out and pay them for their time spent not successfully publishing a book? Artists that can't sell their paintings? |
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 5, 2018 16:56:01 GMT
Well, in times of huge competition, if a video not only attracts views but also keeps people watching to the end (user retention), then in my book it HAS great value. I am not saying people should be paid for uploads. I am saying people should be paid for putting successful videos onto the platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by gyroscope on Mar 5, 2018 18:26:01 GMT
I'm moving this conversation to a new thread. This discussion needs to be more visible.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbeetle on Mar 5, 2018 19:06:01 GMT
Well, in times of huge competition, if a video not only attracts views but also keeps people watching to the end (user retention), then in my book it HAS great value. I am not saying people should be paid for uploads. I am saying people should be paid for putting successful videos onto the platform. I see your point. How can the system be tweaked to that end without robbing the poor to pay the poorer?  |
|
|
|
Post by gyroscope on Mar 5, 2018 20:21:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 5, 2018 20:28:27 GMT
Well, in times of huge competition, if a video not only attracts views but also keeps people watching to the end (user retention), then in my book it HAS great value. I am not saying people should be paid for uploads. I am saying people should be paid for putting successful videos onto the platform. I see your point. How can the system be tweaked to that end without robbing the poor to pay the poorer? Well, YouTube would simply have to split three ways. Keep a part for itself (they do have some cost, however small ), pay out a part based on watch time, the third part goes directly to the channel that had to carry the ad. After all an ad riddled channel will be at a disadvantage when it comes to views. |
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 5, 2018 20:35:34 GMT
I can only underscore what Jörg is saying with this addition: Just the fact of discussing who who'll be allowed to do what on YouTube risks destroying the whole idea: This is about getting YouTube to change their monetising policy and acting fairly according to their own rules and making these rules transparent. It is NOT about changing their basic rules of admissible content.You keep saying this but what you are missing is that many people believe they are talking about content that is already OK under rules already in place. You are the one that keeps suggesting that people in the group want to change what is admissible. So far I have not seen this but maybe I missed something. |
|
|
|
Post by gyroscope on Mar 5, 2018 21:04:35 GMT
This advertising question needs to be discussed somewhere visible, not in a thread labelled 'The Alt-Right Issue.' Shoo. Go where more people can see the topic and join in. |
|
|
|
Post by ryanbreheny on Mar 5, 2018 21:38:54 GMT
but you should be aware that political ideologues will try to co-opt this union - i've seen it happen so many times.. they'll want a gender neutral union first
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 5, 2018 21:45:50 GMT
but you should be aware that political ideologues will try to co-opt this union - i've seen it happen so many times.. they'll want a gender neutral union first How exactly are we not already gender neutral |
|
|
|
Post by 4thekore on Mar 5, 2018 22:23:18 GMT
but you should be aware that political ideologues will try to co-opt this union - i've seen it happen so many times.. they'll want a gender neutral union first How exactly are we not already gender neutral This is not a dating site. Let's stop with the splitting of the group. This group is about getting a better platform or possibly building one. Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 5, 2018 23:33:24 GMT
The alt-right want free speech and liberty, we want traditional values and the preservation of national culture. This movement is fertile ground for us since it protects and promotes free speech and political discourse. The issue of a union is extra-national and our goals are aligned with yours. Personally speaking I'm be more than happy to work with ANY group to achieve this goal.
With that said, I would be very careful putting too much trust in my left-wing counterparts, they have a history of censorship, de-platforming, obstruction and violence. This thread was created specifically for the purpose of marginalizing conservatives and so just hours after the creation of this board, the seeds have been planted and the subversion has already begun.
|
|
